@cdnencyclopedia

Indigenous Peoples Collection

Support The Canadian Encyclopedia

Van der Peet Case

In the R. v. Van der Peet case (1996), the Supreme Court of Canada defined and restricted what constitutes Indigenous rights, as previously defined by the R. v. Sparrow case (1990). Criticized for narrowing the scope of Indigenous rights, the Van der Peet test — a set of criteria established by the court to prove Indigenous rights — stipulates that the Indigenous custom, practice or tradition in question must be integral to the distinctive culture of the Aboriginal group claiming the right and originate from before contact with the Europeans.

Context

Dorothy Van der Peet, a Stó:lō woman from ​British Columbia​, was charged with illegally selling salmon caught
under a fishing licence intended only for food and ceremonial purposes. Section
27(5) of the British Columbia Fishery (General) Regulations prohibits the sale
of fish caught under this licence to non-Indigenous people.

Van der Peet believed that section 35(1) of the ​Constitution Act, 1982​, which states that “the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights
of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed,” enshrined
her right to sell fish. Van der Peet subsequently challenged the charges in
court.

Court Cases and
Rulings

A magistrate of the provincial court ruled that Van der
Peet’s rights were not infringed upon because section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, does not include
the right for Aboriginal people to sell fish. The judge convicted Van der Peet,
who eventually took the case to the ​Supreme Court of Canada​.

In 1996, the majority of the Supreme Court upheld that,
while the Stó:lō
have the right to fish, their ancestral rights do not include selling
fish. In the R. v. Sparrow
case (1990), the Supreme Court established criteria for proving ​Indigenous rights​, but the court has since narrowed that definition. It created the
Integral to a Distinctive Culture Test, or the Van der Peet test, to prove an
Indigenous right. “To constitute an Aboriginal right, an activity must be an
element of a custom, practice or tradition forming an integral part of a
distinct culture of the Aboriginal group that claims the right in question,”
according to the criteria of the test. The Supreme Court also ruled that, in
future cases, courts must take into consideration oral histories and Indigenous
peoples’ relationship to the land.

Two judges, McLachlin and L’Heureux-Dubé, disagreed with the
final ruling and argued that the Stó:lō did have the right to sell fish. They did not feel that
it was necessary for the practice of selling fish (or any other custom) to have
been established before European contact — it was enough for the custom or
practice to have been part of the culture for a substantial period of time.
Nevertheless, Van der Peet lost her case.

Criticism

Like McLachlin and L’Heureux-Dubé, some critics argue that
the Van der Peet test narrows the scope of Indigenous rights while simultaneously
providing the Crown
with the opportunity to extinguish Indigenous rights. Furthermore, the test
concentrates on cultural practices of the past rather than those of the
present. It ignores the dynamic nature of Indigenous cultures by assuming that
only pre-contact practices are vital to the society.

Significance

The Van der Peet
case is important in Canadian law because the Supreme Court ruling
controversially defined and restricted the scope of Indigenous rights in
section 35(1) of the Constitution Act,
1982. It also narrowed the definition of rights as established by the
Sparrow precedent.